G.R. No. 172555; July 10, 2007
Alegar Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Emilio Alvarez, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alegar Corporation acquired a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila, from the Legarda family. The property was previously verbally leased on a monthly basis to Catalina Bartolome, and after her death, her children continued in possession. Due to non-payment of rentals, petitioner sent a demand letter addressed to the “Heirs of Catalina Bartolome,” which was received by respondent Emilio Alvarez, a grandson of Catalina. Upon non-compliance, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) against the named heirs and other occupants.
The process server’s return indicated that summons for some named defendants could not be served as they were deceased or no longer residing at the address. Summons for defendant Ramon Alvarez was served through a tenant, Guilberto Acosta. Respondent filed an Answer, questioning the court’s jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants due to improper service of summons, noting that many named defendants were already dead and that Acosta was not authorized to receive summons.

ISSUE

Whether the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants through the service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, dismissing the complaint without prejudice except as to respondent Emilio Alvarez. The Court held that the substituted service of summons was invalid. For substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service within a reasonable time, and (2) service on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence, or a competent person in charge of the office or place of business. The process server’s return failed to demonstrate earnest efforts to effect personal service or the impossibility thereof within a reasonable time. Moreover, leaving the summons with Guilberto Acosta, a mere tenant whose relation to the defendant was unexplained, did not constitute valid substituted service.
Consequently, the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, except for respondent Emilio Alvarez. Respondent voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing an Answer and actively participating in the proceedings. Therefore, the MeTC’s judgment is binding only on him. The complaint against all other defendants was correctly dismissed without prejudice, allowing petitioner to refile the action after proper service of summons.